Thursday, October 21, 2004

Anyone currently reading

Instapundit knows that he's been wrangling with a couple of bloggers, particularly Tony Pierce and Andrew Sullivan, over his personal biases. Apparently there's an issue with the fact that a) Glenn Reynolds doesn't have a regular disclaimer deliniating his personal opinions so that his readers will automatically know his frame of referene, and b) he doesn't link to enough anti-war, pro-Kerry material.

We'll take "B" first. Bah. Long-time readers of Instapundit know that Reynolds posts for two reasons: the topic interests him; the story isn't getting enough play in the MSM. The first reason is easy enough to understand, and doesn't require discussion. The other is critical. Reynolds doesn't post many pro-Kerry stories because, if you want one, you can go to CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, et al to get one. Trying to find a pro-Bush story, or a story that really discusses more than the surface gloss of the Duelfer report, you have to go elsewhere. Enter Instapundit.

Back to "A." Who the hell cares? This blog assumes that if readers can't figure out the biases of the bloggers who post on it, then they can read the archives (with links handily placed on the side of the page). If readers of this blog haven't figured out that I think that Bush may well be remembered as the first great President of the 21st century, and that I think Kerry is a bag of sawdust, then you haven't been paying attention and you should go back to your Dick & Jane books.

I'm going to assume the same is true for Instapundit (not the sawdust thing, the respecting the reader's intelligence thing). If you can't figure out where Reynolds lands, look at his past posts and figure it out. That's not too much to ask, is it?

And if you still can't get over Reynolds bias, well, read somebody else or write your own. That's the joy of blogs -- there's one for every taste, and the cost of entry is nil.